Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 39 references

"If anybody finds out you are in BIG TROUBLE": Understanding Children's Hopes, Fears, and Evaluations of Generative AI

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Children envision generative AI as a companion, a collaborator, and a task automator, while also fearing that using it for schoolwork leads to diminished learning, punishment, and long-term failure.

desk verdict A small, honestly reported pilot that extends the hopes-and-fears lens to genAI; the three-role taxonomy is useful, but the fear findings may be partly a classroom-context artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16089 v1 pith:3CZJ7PQF submitted 2025-05-22 cs.HC

Aayushi Dangol , Robert Wolfe , Daeun Yoo , Arya Thiruvillakkat , Ben Chickadel , Julie A. Kientz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords Child-computerinteractiongenerativeAIchildren'sperceptionshopesandfearsliteracyparticipatorydesignthematicanalysisfifth-gradestudents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks what 9- and 10-year-olds hope generative AI will do for them and what they fear it might do to them, and it answers with a three-part taxonomy. Across three classroom sessions with 37 fifth-graders, children described genAI as a companion that offers guidance, a collaborator that works alongside them, and a task automator that takes over chores like homework and piano practice. At the same time, the children worried that relying on AI for schoolwork means missing practice, getting caught and punished, and failing later in life. The paper argues that designers and educators should treat both the hopes and the fears as real design constraints, building AI that explains steps instead of handing out answers.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a three-session classroom protocol. In Session 1, children wrote stories and drew pictures of what genAI could do in their daily lives; in Session 2, they interacted with six custom genAI agents for cooking, homework, sports, games, songwriting, and theatre, then completed worksheets about when human judgment beats AI; in Session 3, they developed their own evaluation criteria, rated each agent as best, average, or worst, and discussed their ratings. Thematic analysis of the worksheets and artifacts produced the three-role taxonomy and the hope-fear tension.

What would settle it

Run the same three-session protocol privately—worksheets completed anonymously at home or in one-on-one interviews with no teacher present—and check whether the fear-of-discipline themes and the three-role taxonomy still appear; if the discipline fears disappear and the task-automator role dominates, the classroom context, not children's stable perceptions, produced the paper's central tension.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central finding is that children's relationship with generative AI is double-edged in a specific way: they freely imagine AI taking over tasks they find burdensome, yet they also believe using AI for schoolwork is a high-risk behavior that leads to diminished learning, disciplinary trouble, and long-term failure. When asked to create their own evaluation criteria, children prioritized accuracy, speed, clarity, creativity, and social-emotional engagement, and they repeatedly asked for step-by-step explanations rather than direct answers, with one child calling a direct answer 'cheating.' The paper also observes that children's criteria emphasized immediate usability over human control or autonomy, which it reads as a gap in critical AI literacy.

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on the assumption that what 37 children wrote and said in a classroom, with their teacher and peers present, reflects their authentic and stable views of generative AI rather than answers shaped by the setting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Children's request for step-by-step explanations suggests child-facing genAI should be designed to coach problem-solving rather than supply final answers.
  • Because children associate AI-assisted homework with detection and punishment, school policies and classroom norms will shape whether children experience genAI as a learning tool or a forbidden shortcut.
  • The three-role taxonomy gives designers a concrete scale—advisor, collaborator, automator—for deciding how much control to hand to the AI in a child-facing product.
  • Children's evaluation criteria can serve as a starting point for AI-literacy curricula that teach children to scrutinize accuracy, clarity, and emotional tone in AI outputs.
  • Mixed ratings of the same agent show that individual differences matter, so flexible or customizable AI behavior is worth testing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Outside the classroom, where no teacher is watching, children's fears of punishment may fade, so the same children might embrace the task-automator role more openly in anonymous or home settings; a private-response replication would test this.
  • The taxonomy maps naturally onto levels of automation, and the paper's data suggest children do not yet connect 'task automator' with loss of learning except when school consequences are salient.
  • A testable extension would give children the same six agents in an anonymous digital survey with no adult present and compare whether the three roles and the discipline fears replicate; if they vanish, the context, not the technology, produced them.
  • The finding that children value speed and friendliness over autonomy implies that simply handing children 'safe' AI is insufficient; children may need guided practice in noticing when a fast, friendly answer is wrong or shallow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a pilot study in which 37 fifth-grade students (ages 9–10) took part in three classroom sessions involving generative AI tools. The authors conducted a thematic analysis of children's written worksheets, drawings, and group discussions. They claim that children envision genAI in three roles — as a companion/advisor providing guidance, a collaborator working alongside them, and a task automator that offloads responsibilities — while simultaneously fearing that AI-assisted schoolwork leads to diminished learning, disciplinary consequences, and long-term failure. The paper also describes children's self-generated evaluation criteria and argues that these criteria prioritize immediate usability over human autonomy, motivating a call for AI literacy education.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and understudied question: how children themselves hope for, fear, and evaluate generative AI. Its strengths include the use of direct quotes from children, a multi-session design with hands-on interaction, child-developed evaluation criteria, and IRB-approved consent procedures. If the findings are robust, the three-role taxonomy and the fear themes would be a useful starting point for child-centric AI design. However, the fear findings are elicited under conditions that may prime the reported conclusion, one of the three roles rests on very thin evidence, and the Discussion appears to contradict parts of the Findings. The manuscript is a promising pilot but needs revision to substantiate the central claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, §4.2] The protocol used to collect the fear data appears to prime the reported conclusion. Session 2's worksheet explicitly asked students to 'explor[e] situations where human judgment was preferable over AI-generated support' (§3.1), and all sessions were held in Technology class with the teacher present. The quotes in §4.2 about getting 'into BIG trouble', being expelled, or retaking school come from these worksheets and from group discussions in that setting. Children have strong incentives to voice school norms against AI-assisted homework in front of their teacher. The paper does not report an anonymous response channel, a member-check, or evidence that these fears appeared without the priming prompt (e.g., in unprompted Session 1 stories). This makes the central fear finding conditional on the elicitation context. Please either reframe the finding as context-dependent, or add a validation step such as private written responses or analysis of unprompted Session 1 data.
  2. [§4.1] The 'task automator' role, which is one of the three roles in the abstract's central taxonomy, is supported by only two quotations (Ava and Ora). No additional data are provided for this role — for example, counts of similar responses across the 37 worksheets, drawings, or group discussion excerpts — unlike the other two roles, which each have several examples. With only two participants, it is difficult to assess whether this is a stable theme or an outlier. Please either supply more supporting data (e.g., a table showing how many children expressed each role) or present the 'task automator' as a tentative subtheme rather than a co-equal role.
  3. [§4.3 vs §5] The Discussion states that children's evaluation criteria 'did not reflect an emphasis on human control or autonomy' and that they 'prioritized genAI's immediate usability,' but this is contradicted by the findings in §4.3. There, children explicitly requested step-by-step explanations so they could solve problems themselves (Theo), and Jude rejected a direct answer to 457 ÷ 9 because 'that would be cheating.' These are expressions of a preference for guided learning over autonomous completion. The Discussion should be revised to align with the evidence, or the relevant finding should be re-analyzed.
  4. [§3] The Methods section states that 37 students participated, but the usage percentages (76.3% voice assistants, 68.4% video game AIs, 23.7% chatbots, 5.3% no direct experience) do not correspond to integer counts out of 37: for example, 76.3% of 37 is 28.2 and 5.3% of 37 is 1.96. The percentages appear consistent with 38 participants, not 37. Please correct the counts or percentages; this reporting error affects the reader's trust in the descriptive statistics.
  5. [§3.1 (final paragraph)] The description of the thematic analysis is sparse: no codebook, no code frequencies, no information on how many data items were assigned to each theme, and no audit trail beyond 'collaboratively discussed and refined the codes.' Given that the paper's central claims are qualitative, please provide more detail on the coding process (e.g., code definitions, examples of disagreements and resolutions, or an appendix with the coding framework). If inter-rater reliability is not applicable to this design, state that explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs §4.1] The abstract uses the label 'companion' for the first role, while §4.1 calls it an 'advisor'; please align the terminology throughout.
  2. [§3] The usage percentages sum to 173.7%; please clarify that these are multiple-response categories and not mutually exclusive.
  3. [§4.3] Tessa's rating is quoted as 'worse,' but the rating scale introduced in §3.1 is 'Best, Average, or Worst'; use consistent labels.
  4. [§5] The claim that children's criteria 'did not reflect an emphasis on human control or autonomy' could be read as implying that children never mentioned control; see Major Comment 3, since this is also a substantive inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the three-role taxonomy and fear themes rest on newly collected child responses, not on fitted inputs or self-cited theorems.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation and fits no quantitative parameter; its central claims are qualitative themes (companion/collaborator/task automator; fears of diminished learning, discipline, and long-term failure) generated by inductive open coding of Session 1 narratives and drawings, Session 2 worksheets, and Session 3 evaluations. The self-citations ([7]-[10], [19], [34]-[35]) appear only as background framing or related work, not as evidence that forces the reported themes, and no uniqueness theorem or methodological constraint is imported from them. The Session 2 worksheet prompt about exploring situations where human judgment is preferable could plausibly prime fear responses, but that is an elicitation-validity concern (demand characteristics), not a case in which an output equals an input by construction. The paper also discloses the single-school, 37-child sample as a limitation, acknowledging that the themes need broader replication. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain is invoked to make the findings true, so there is no circular step meeting the evidentiary bar. The low score reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations, not any circular reasoning in the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters exist because the study is purely qualitative with no numerical fitting. Four domain assumptions are load-bearing: the validity of the thematic analysis, the authenticity of children's responses in a classroom setting, the representativeness of the specific AI systems used, and the sufficiency of the sample. No new entities are posited.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Inductive thematic analysis yields valid and reliable themes from the collected worksheets and observational notes.
    The paper reports using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis but provides no coder agreement metrics, audit trail, or member checking; theme identification relies on the authors' consensus.
  • domain assumption Children's classroom responses reflect their genuine hopes and fears rather than socially desirable answers.
    A teacher facilitated all sessions and the school context frames AI-assisted homework as cheating; this may bias children toward reporting fear of punishment.
  • domain assumption ChatGPT-4o and the six custom GPT Store agents represent generative AI as a category for the purpose of children's perceptions.
    The paper generalizes from these specific systems to 'genAI' throughout the introduction and discussion.
  • domain assumption A sample of 37 students from two classrooms in one school is adequate to surface the reported themes.
    The findings section presents the three-role taxonomy without hedging; the discussion acknowledges the sample limits only in the future-work paragraph.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "If anybody finds out you are in BIG TROUBLE": Understanding Children's Hopes, Fears, and Evaluations of Generative AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3CZJ7PQF

@misc{pith2026250516089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "If anybody finds out you are in BIG TROUBLE": Understanding Children's Hopes, Fears, and Evaluations of Generative AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3CZJ7PQF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16089}
}
read the original abstract

As generative artificial intelligence (genAI) increasingly mediates how children learn, communicate, and engage with digital content, understanding children's hopes and fears about this emerging technology is crucial. In a pilot study with 37 fifth-graders, we explored how children (ages 9-10) envision genAI and the roles they believe it should play in their daily life. Our findings reveal three key ways children envision genAI: as a companion providing guidance, a collaborator working alongside them, and a task automator that offloads responsibilities. However, alongside these hopeful views, children expressed fears about overreliance, particularly in academic settings, linking it to fears of diminished learning, disciplinary consequences, and long-term failure. This study highlights the need for child-centric AI design that balances these tensions, empowering children with the skills to critically engage with and navigate their evolving relationships with digital technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fifth grade students engaging with generative AI during their Technology class. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of genAI agents used by students, assisting with songwriting, video game development, and cooking. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Children’s conceptualization of generative AI as a supportive tool in their daily life. The drawings depict genAI as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eman A Alasadi and Carlos R Baiz. 2023. Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education 100, 8 (2023), 2965–2971

    2023

  2. [2]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2022. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology 9, 1 (2022), 3

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal. 2019. Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nature machine intelligence 1, 2 (2019), 74–78

    2019

  4. [4]

    Pew Research Center. 2025. About a Quarter of US Teens Have Used ChatGPT for Schoolwork, Double the Share in 2023 . https://www.pewresearch.org/short- reads/2025/01/15/about-a-quarter-of-us-teens-have-used-chatgpt-for- schoolwork-double-the-share-in-2023/

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Liuqing Chen, Shuhong Xiao, Yunnong Chen, Yaxuan Song, Ruoyu Wu, and Lingyun Sun. 2024. ChatScratch: an AI-Augmented System Toward Autonomous Visual Programming Learning for Children Aged 6-12. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, U...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    It’s kind of weird talking to a sphere

    Gail Collyer-Hoar, Elisa Rubegni, Laura Malinverni, and Jason Yip. 2024. " It’s kind of weird talking to a sphere": Exploring Children’s Hopes and Fears on Social Robot Morphology Using Speculative Research Methods. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 276–288

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    I Want to Think Like an SLP

    Aayushi Dangol, Aaleyah Lewis, Hyewon Suh, Xuesi Hong, Hedda Meadan, James Fogarty, and Julie A Kientz. 2025. “I Want to Think Like an SLP”: A Design Exploration of AI-Supported Home Practice in Speech Therapy. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–21

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Aayushi Dangol, Michele Newman, Robert Wolfe, Jin Ha Lee, Julie A Kientz, Jason Yip, and Caroline Pitt. 2024. Mediating Culture: Cultivating Socio-cultural Understanding of AI in Children through Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1805–1822

    work page 2024

Show all 39 references
  1. [10]

    AI just keeps guessing

    Aayushi Dangol, Runhua Zhao, Robert Wolfe, Trushaa Ramanan, Julie A. Kientz, and Jason Yip. 2025. “AI just keeps guessing”: Using ARC Puzzles to Help Children Identify Reasoning Errors in Generative AI. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’25)...

    2025

  2. [11]

    Griffin Dietz, Joseph Outa, Lauren Lowe, James A Landay, and Hyowon Gweon

  3. [12]

    Riddhi Divanji, Aayushi Dangol, Ella J Lombard, Katharine Chen, and Jennifer D Rubin. 2024. Togethertales RPG: Prosocial skill development through digitally mediated collaborative role-playing. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference . ...

    2024

  4. [13]

    Min Fan, Xinyue Cui, Jing Hao, Renxuan Ye, Wanqing Ma, Xin Tong, and Meng Li. 2024. StoryPrompt: Exploring the Design Space of an AI-Empowered Creative Storytelling System for Elementary Children. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–8

    2024

  5. [14]

    Teresa Margaret Flanagan. 2023. GROWING UP IN THE DIGITAL AGE: INVESTI- GATING CHILDREN’S USE, JUDGMENT, AND ENGAGEMENT WITH INTERAC- TIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Ph. D. Dissertation. Cornell University

    2023

  6. [15]

    Shuchi Grover. 2024. Teaching AI to K-12 Learners: Lessons, Issues, and Guid- ance. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE 2024). Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 422–428. https...

    2024

  7. [16]

    Ariel Han and Zhenyao Cai. 2023. Design implications of generative AI systems for visual storytelling for young learners. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference . 470–474

    2023

  8. [17]

    Eliza Kosoy, Soojin Jeong, Anoop Sinha, Alison Gopnik, and Tanya Kraljic. 2024. Children’s Mental Models of Generative Visual and Text Based AI Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13081 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Hao-Ping Hank Lee, Advait Sarkar, Lev Tankelevitch, Ian Drosos, Sean Rintel, Richard Banks, and Nicholas Wilson. 2025. The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. (2025)

    2025

  10. [19]

    Aaleyah Lewis, Aayushi Dangol, Hyewon Suh, Abbie Olszewski, James Fogarty, and Julie A. Kientz. 2025. Exploring AI-Based Support in Speech-Language Pathology for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) (...

    2025

  11. [20]

    Sonia M Livingstone and Alicia Blum-Ross. 2020. Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives . Oxford University Press

    2020

  12. [21]

    Duri Long and Brian Magerko. 2020. What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https://...

    2020

  13. [22]

    Duri Long, Sophie Rollins, Jasmin Ali-Diaz, Katherine Hancock, Samnang Nuon- sinoeun, Jessica Roberts, and Brian Magerko. 2023. Fostering AI Literacy with Embodiment & Creativity: From Activity Boxes to Museum Exhibits. In Proceed- ings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Desig...

    2023

  14. [23]

    Emily McReynolds, Sarah Hubbard, Timothy Lau, Aditya Saraf, Maya Cakmak, and Franziska Roesner. 2017. Toys that listen: A study of parents, children, and internet-connected toys. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 5197–5207

    2017

  15. [24]

    Common Sense Media. 2025. New Report Shows Students Are Em- bracing Artificial Intelligence Despite Lack of Parent A wareness . https: //www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/new-report-shows-students- are-embracing-artificial-intelligence-despite-lack-of-parent-awareness-an...

    2025

  16. [25]

    I want it to talk like Darth Vader

    Michele Newman, Kaiwen Sun, Ilena B Dalla Gasperina, Grace Y Shin, Matthew Kyle Pedraja, Ritesh Kanchi, Maia B Song, Rannie Li, Jin Ha Lee, and Jason Yip. 2024. " I want it to talk like Darth Vader": Helping Children Con- struct Creative Self-Efficacy with Generative AI. In Pr...

    2024

  17. [26]

    Junaid Qadir. 2023. Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. In 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 1–9

    2023

  18. [27]

    Are you smart?

    Kai Quander, Tanzila Roushan Milky, Natalie Aponte, Natalia Caceres Carrascal, and Julia Woodward. 2024. “Are you smart?”: Children’s Understanding of “Smart” Technologies. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 625–638

    2024

  19. [28]

    Mitchel Resnick. 2024. Generative AI and creative learning: Concerns, opportu- nities, and choices. (2024)

    2024

  20. [29]

    Kevin Roose. [n. d.]. Don’t Ban ChatGPT in Schools. Teach With It. The New York Times ([n. d.]). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/technology/chatgpt- schools-teachers.html IDC ’25, June 23–26, 2025, Reykjavik, Iceland Dangol et al

    2023

  21. [30]

    Don’t let the robots walk our dogs, but it’s ok for them to do our homework

    Elisa Rubegni, Laura Malinverni, and Jason Yip. 2022. “Don’t let the robots walk our dogs, but it’s ok for them to do our homework”: children’s perceptions, fears, and hopes in social robots.. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference . 352–361

    2022

  22. [31]

    Matthijs Smakman, Paul Vogt, and Elly A Konijn. 2021. Moral considerations on social robots in education: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Computers & Education 174 (2021), 104317

    2021

  23. [32]

    Jaemarie Solyst, Ellia Yang, Shixian Xie, Jessica Hammer, Amy Ogan, and Motah- hare Eslami. 2024. Children’s Overtrust and Shifting Perspectives of Generative AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14511 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Jiahong Su and Weipeng Yang. 2023. Unlocking the power of ChatGPT: A framework for applying generative AI in education. ECNU Review of Education 6, 3 (2023), 355–366

    2023

  25. [34]

    Robert Wolfe, Aayushi Dangol, Alexis Hiniker, and Bill Howe. 2024. Dataset Scale and Societal Consistency Mediate Facial Impression Bias in Vision-Language AI. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , Vol. 7. 1635–1647

    2024

  26. [35]

    Robert Wolfe, Aayushi Dangol, Bill Howe, and Alexis Hiniker. 2024. Representa- tion Bias of Adolescents in AI: A Bilingual, Bicultural Study. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , Vol. 7. 1621–1634

    2024

  27. [36]

    Yi Wu. 2023. Integrating generative AI in education: how ChatGPT brings challenges for future learning and teaching. Journal of Advanced Research in Education 2, 4 (2023), 6–10

    2023

  28. [37]

    Jason C Yip, Kiley Sobel, Xin Gao, Allison Marie Hishikawa, Alexis Lim, Laura Meng, Romaine Flor Ofiana, Justin Park, and Alexis Hiniker. 2019. Laughing is scary, but farting is cute: A conceptual model of children’s perspectives of creepy technologies. In Proceedings of the 2...

    2019

  29. [38]

    Chao Zhang, Cheng Yao, Jianhui Liu, Zili Zhou, Weilin Zhang, Lijuan Liu, Fang- tian Ying, Yijun Zhao, and Guanyun Wang. 2021. StoryDrawer: A Co-Creative Agent Supporting Children’s Storytelling through Collaborative Drawing. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on ...

    2021

  30. [39]

    Yijun Zhao, Yiming Cheng, Shiying Ding, Yan Fang, Wei Cao, Ke Liu, and Jiacheng Cao. 2024. Magic Camera: An AI Drawing Game Supporting Instantaneous Story Creation for Children. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 738–743

    2024

  31. [2023]

    mental states

    Theory of AI Mind: How adults and children reason about the“mental states”of conversational AI. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 45

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.